Allahabad Court January 1916 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Musammat Bageshra and anr. Vs. Sheo Nath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All389; 32Ind.Cas.930
Walsh, J.1. This is a suit for possession by the plaintiffs, as to whom it is found that they are the owners of the property in question and that they have succeeded in showing their title. The defendants at the commencement of the plaintiffs' suit were in possession of the property. They claimed title under a document granted long subsequently to the document under which the plaintiffs claim their title, viz., some time in December 1902.2. The first Court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit on the ground that the plaintiffs or their predecessors-in title had been out of possession for more than 12 years. The lower Appellate Court, i.e., the District, Judge, overruled this finding and held that the suit was one for possession, that the time for bringing the suit dated from 1902 and that the period applicable was 12 years under Article 144 of the Indian Limitation Act. I am not sure that any point of law really arises. After hearing the judgments of the Courts below, it seems to me that subs...
Mahabir Kasaimdhan Vs. Makhdum Bakhsh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All16; 40Ind.Cas.191
1. This is an appeal from an order of remand. The suit was on a mortgage. The contesting defendant, who is a transferee from the original mortgagor, put the plaintiff to proof of the execution and of the validity of the deed in suit, as well as of the passing of the consideration. The first Court held that the execution of the deed was proved, but it was not proved that it was attested by two witnesses as required by Section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act The lower Appellate Court has held that the attestation by two witnesses was proved. If this had come before us as a clear finding of fact on the part of the lower Appellate Court, it is doubtful whether we could have interfered with it, but the learned Subordinate Judge arrives at his conclusion by a method of reasoning which is apparent from the judgment itself. He admits that no witness deposed that the mark of the executant Phagu, by whioh the said Phagu, being illiterate, purports to have executed the deed in suit, was affixe...
Guizari Lal Vs. Latif Husain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-03-1916
Reported in: (1916)ILR38All181
Tudball and Walsh, JJ.1. This is an appeal from an order of remand passed by a District Judge in a simple suit for rent. A preliminary objection is taken that no appeal lies to this Court. The suit was instituted in the court of an Assistant Collector of the second class and was decreed. An appeal was preferred in the court of the Collector of the district which upheld the decree. A second appeal was preferred to the District Judge under the provisions of Section 180, Clause (2). The learned District Judge has remanded the case through the court of the first instance for decision in view of certain remarks made by the District Judge in his judgement. Act II of 1901, Section 175, clearly lays down that 'no appeal shall lie from any decree or order passed by any court under this Act except as hereinafter provided.' Appeals from District Judges' decisions are governed by Section 182, which allows only second appeals to this Court from a decree in appeal of a District Judge in accordance w...
Gulzari Lal Vs. Latif Husain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-03-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All325; 35Ind.Cas.27
Tudball, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of remand passed by a District Judge in a simple suit for rent. A preliminary objection is taken that no appeal lies to this Court. The suit was instituted in the Court of an Assistant Collector of the second class and was decreed. An appeal was preferred in the Court of the Collector of the District which upheld the decree. A second appeal was preferred to the District Judge under the provisions of Section 180, Clause (2). The learned District Judge has remanded the 3ase through the Court of the first appeal to the Court of first instance for decision, in view of certain remarks made by the District Judge in his judgment. Act II of 1901, Section 175, clearly lays down that no appeal shall lie from any decree or order passed by any Court under this Act excepts as hereinafter provided. Appeal from District Judge's decisions are governed; by Section 182, which allows only second, appeals to this Court from a decree in appeal of a District Jud...